Presentism Revisited, Public “Apologies”, and a Defense (of a sort) of Danny Masterson

Public figures, please spare me – us – the public “apology” intended to make you appear to have a moral compass, a conscience, or integrity. Hearing one is like chewing on aluminum foil.

Sep 19, 2023

In my most recent essay, I sought to draw attention to the very existential threat of the effects of an arbitrary moral standard, an article of faith that is a fundamental of secular humanism, the latest manifestation of which is Presentism, one of the pillars of the religion of wokeness – wokeness being a more militant strain of secular humanism – more suited to the current day and age. Before it cloaked itself in wokeness, it materialized as somewhat akin to something more mystic, or spiritual known as, New Age – which was merely paganism updated to the time just before the dawn of the digital age.

For some reason, the woke religion requires its adherents who are public figures – especially Hollywood celebrities – to offer public apologies for their private-cum-public “sins.” These cringe-worthy apologies never improve matters – in fact, they merely act as an accelerant on an already out-of-control fire. More on that, later.

“You start a conversation, you can't even finish it
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?”
–David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Tina Weymouth

In any event, it’s one thing to point out the dangers of a destructive practice in theory, it’s quite another to be able to offer a concrete example of its damaging effects. Exhibit number one: Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis:

With friends like these two, who needs enemies?

Their recent public self-flagellation over character references they provided in advance of the criminal trials of fellow actor Danny Masterson demonstrate just how utterly stupid it is to engage in Presentism.

For anyone needing a refresher, here is Bill Maher explaining the practice:

Here is an example of Presentism in practice:

It’s so refreshing when the propaganda apparatus’ outlets like, Inside Edition, unintentionally commit acts of journalism that harken back to a time when journalists just reported, sometimes offering informative context, but without editorializing.

Regarding the letters written attesting to Masterson’s character, why the sudden public display of regret? What’s wrong with admitting that you made a mistake, or simply stating that what you wrote was what you felt was true of him at that time? Why not own it, apologize privately to the injured parties if necessary, and continue on with what you are doing, now?

This behaviour only begs the questions:
“Was the content of those references not true?”
“Were you both lying?”

If not, and they were lying, are they not getting the scorn – from Kathy Griffin, of all people – they deserve?

Apparently, Kutcher doesn’t believe his apology to be sufficient repentance (hey, Ashton – guess what? It isn’t – nothing is). Nothing he does to atone for his sin of coming to the aid of a friend who is later revealed to be less than a saint (by woke standards, anyway – whatever the hell they are, at that moment) will ever balance the scales.

Hell, even Vogue magazine, the menstrual period blood-stained rag of that soulless strumpet Anna Wintour almost gets it:

But on the whole, it appears almost impossible to get a public apology right—either the wording or the delivery falls short.

This is because it is impossible to get a public apology right – mainly because a public apology is not needed. Most of us, if we do it properly, know just what it is for which we are apologizing, we accept the consequences and that the relationship is forever altered, or perhaps even broken beyond repair.

Nonetheless, once we truly and sincerely have apologized to the one(s) we’ve harmed, there is nothing else for all involved to do but move forward. If we have any awareness, we don’t ask for forgiveness – we can express that we hope at some point they can forgive us, but it is not ours to ask because it puts the injured party in the awkward position of granting something they may not be prepared or able to do.

The reason I wrote that it almost gets it is this last sentence:

If only celebs could just always, unfailingly, do the right thing—be squeaky-clean pillars of moral purity—then they’d never need to say sorry.

This is such a poor attempt at snark it barely warrants a mention, except that it all but demonstrates the writer never really understood the pointlessness of the public apology in the first place, especially by celebrities. No one is asking, or even suggesting such – except her, for the purposes of creating her straw man.

Either Kutcher doesn’t know this, or if he does, it doesn’t matter. He’s resigning from the organization he helped found that fights against sexual abuse – a noble enough goal – but why can’t he own that he clearly believes he was mistaken about his fellow actor, and be that much more resolved to apply that experience to redoubling his organization’s efforts?

Who says that his error in judgement necessarily is a distraction from the organization’s mission? Perhaps he is self-aware enough to know that he cannot hold two contradictory ideas in his head at the same time. That would indicate that his mental development stopped at around age twelve.

Nonetheless:

The actor, who founded the organization with fellow actor and ex-wife Demi Moore, noted despite his more than a decade and a half of work…supporting sexually exploited people…his letter in support of Masterson was another form of the historical silencing of the victims [for] whom the organization fights.

Personally, that’s seems like a quantum leap of reasoning.

Regardless, this transcript of the video above (re: Hilary Duff) is schädenfreude gold:

…she's one of the girls that we're all waiting for to turn 18, along with the Olsen twins…

…and with a then-fourteen year-old Mila Kunis…

…Danny goes, ‘Dude, I'll give you ten dollars if you french kiss her’ [to me, that's like 20 bucks] that I wouldn't do it and of course I'm like “yeah, sure – what's the [big] deal?”

Apparently, Ashton Kutcher is living proof that fifteen won’t, in fact, get you twenty.

Let’s acknowledge that the video of Kutcher is old, and that likely he’s not at all proud of what he said even if it weren’t preserved for all eternity in video format. I’m willing to extend him that much grace, at a minimum.

Should he be condemned for it? In a more just world, I’d come down firmly on the side of, ‘No, he should not’ – but they are part of a population that is known for mocking most of the rest of the nation for being in fly-over country, never mind that the ones in the part of the country they love to mock only recently stopped paying to be insulted by the entertainment their employers foist on us.

These are the same people who advocate “rules for thee, but not for me”.

These are the same people who applaud the efforts of the federal government and certain states to deny the constitutional rights of the one person who took up our fight when we had no voice, and that is why his persecution is also ours.

These are the very people who hate Donald Trump, so by extension, they hate us, too. For these reasons, I’ll shed no tears for him, or his vacuous pinhead wife.

Now – can we recall an instance where someone who was correctly perceived to be the enemy and an existential threat to the deep state’s Uniparty, was the object of a well-orchestrated smear campaign, the centerpiece of which was a decades-old audio recording of the Republican Party candidate for president in which he described reprehensible personal behaviour he only said he did, closer to empty boasting like an adolescent male might do among peers in the locker room?

Look – neither are innocents here, but given the time that has passed, even if inexcusable, none of these people deserve to have their pasts used as bludgeons on their lives at present.

My low regard for Kutcher and his tramp of a wife are not because of their respective pasts, it’s their association with those who are enemies of Trump, enemies of due process, enemies of this nation’s constitution. Yes, it is guilt by association, and if both reject their industry’s institutional hatred of President Trump, recognize the injustice being perpetrated on him and the rest of us, and are willing to publicly stand up for him in the same way they are now throwing themselves on the altar of woke in the court of public opinion, I’ll be the first to make my own public apology.

As it is, however, Jane Doe #1 is correct when she says,

…it was incredibly insulting and hurtful…

…and who can argue with Ms. Chrissy Bixler’s opinion that Kutcher is just as sick as is Masterson, allegedly.

So, the actor, Danny Masterson, has been convicted on two counts of rape and sentenced to anywhere from thirty years to life, in prison.

Given the sorry state of this nation’s system of justice, all it means to me is that after two attempts, enough of the right jurors agreed with the prosecution’s presentation.

I remain unconvinced that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these women were raped by him.

In Masterson’s defense, isn’t one of the cultural ethics of Hollywood pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, if not their complete destruction (Frankism1)?

Isn’t it considered a virtue to mock, or to stick a thumb in the eye of those traditional ethics and Judeo-Christian morals that place a value on self-restraint, and personal accountability and integrity?

Isn’t hedonism, and self-gratification among the ends celebrated by modern-day Hollywood?

Based on what we now know, wasn’t Masterson’s behaviour simply a product of Hollywood’s permisiveness?

If we’re going to indict Mr. Masterson for simply living out that which is permitted by show business, isn’t that an indictment on the state of our entertainment industry? Further, if we’re going to blame the entertainment industry, are we not blaming this nation’s capitalist economy? I put it to you, Dear Reader, are we not, in fact, blaming the entire United States of America?

Well, you can do what you like to Mr. Masterson, but the rest of self-accountability-averse Hollywood will not stand and let you bad-mouth the United States of America that the left would prefer – one that is complicit in seeking to normalize all manner of sexual deviance and depravity, pedophilia, statutory rape, child pornography, and child sex trafficking.

Note: The previous sarcastic paragraph was inspired by this clip from a truly classic film – the kind no longer made in Hollywood:

I don’t know who was Masterson’s legal counsel, but I can’t help but wonder if he wouldn’t have been better served with Otter as his representation.

I’m going to enagage in something that the left once highly valued, perhaps even prized above all else - advocating not just for the accused, but the convicted.

I might be inclined to accept the verdict of the jury if not for two relatively recent developments:

1. The complete abandonment of due process for everyone, regardless of the circumstances, even regardless of the evidence.

With the advent of social media, groupthink and mob mentality ushered in the supremacy of the court of public opinion and banished due process with its presumption of innocence to the dust bin of history.

2. Seemingly adult individuals willingly giving themselves over to their adolescent mentality of being in good standing with the “in” crowd, and if there is a chance they might have done something to get themselves cast out of the cool-kids clique, doing everything they possibly can in front of God and everybody to demonstrate that they’ve “repented” and deserve to return to being in good standing.

This clip is offered only to provide a little levity.

There is just so much that doesn’t pass the smell test (at least, with me). Let’s review, shall we?

Danny Masterson is a reasonably successful actor with a track record of steady work. He is not in the company of Hollywood royalty like Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, et al. By Hollywood standards, he’s Joe Lunchpail – a guy who gets steady work, but he’s no headliner. When studios are casting their next blockbuster movie, it isn’t his name occurring to the producers and director. His is not a must-have name, and this is only relevant re: why his alleged crimes were worth the time and expense of two separate trials to “get him”.

As previously mentioned, it took the prosecution two attempts to finally get the conviction it wanted, the first one ending in a hung jury – which means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it apparently retreated, got its ducks in a row, and tried again. This time it got two convictions out of the three originally sought.

This raises a number of questions:

Did the prosecution decide that the third one just wasn’t worth the effort given it got one of them, making the second one a bonus? If so, why?

Was her now-damaged life not deserving of being “made whole”?

Were the three alleged victims somehow connected to more powerful players in Hollywood and/or the DA’s office?

Was the third one not sufficiently connected?

What makes her alleged rape less horrific than the other two?
It occurs to me that if the prosecution was confident of its case, it would have insisted that the judge direct the jury to consider all three charges equally, forcing the jury to convict on all three, or none at all.

What changed re: the evidence between the first trial and the second?

Was there new evidence that was not made available to the defense in discovery?

What changed re: the jury?

Was the prosecution able to select more jurors sympathetic to its case?

Was the defense denied opportunity to veto prospective jury members it felt were prejudiced?

In short, in the second trial, might the deck have been stacked against the defense? If so, in what way?

Did Masterson privately reveal some sentiments that were counter to the woke fundamentalism run amok in Hollywood?

Did he privately out himself as a Trump supporter (highy unlikely), but how can it not be considered?

Now, it’s time to “blame the victims”.

These three women are all very much adults. What was each doing with someone that she would have allowed herself to be put in such a compromising circumstance?

Was he such a charismatic and charming guy that in his presence each of these three women took leave of their senses, and were without any self-control?

Did any say, ‘No, stop.’?

Did any resist, in any way?

If he, as was testified, drugged their drinks, how would that have happened?

How would any of them have allowed it to happen?

This is quite a few years removed from Bill Cosby, now – was each not aware that sexual predators do this?

If any even remotely suspected that Danny Masterson was a creepy guy, why would she remain in his company by herself? Why wouldn’t she leave?

These are legitimate questions and were I in a position to do so, I would demand answers from those who know, and I would push hard until I got one that was honest.

It goes without saying that the respect I have for the legal profession, its practitioners, and its various officers is best represented on a graph at the coordinates, 0,0. My faith in the institution is now all but non-existent.

Beginning with the naked disrespect for the law that began under the first sodomite president when the nation’s attorney general Eric Holder refused to comply with congressional subpoenas with no consequence; then with the FBI actively working against the administration of President Trump (see the Russian hoax); and finally, how the eternal campaign to Get Trump – No Matter What has been joined by government lawyers most of which are the army of US attorneys under the control of the farcically named, Department of Justice and the current attorney general, political hack Merrick Garland.

The highly illegal eternal campaign to Get Trump – No Matter What also includes, as we’ve seen, AGs of various states seeking to personally destroy and bankrupt the former president. I suppose that there is some gratitude to be expressed that there’s not even a pretense of adherence to the law. It isn’t that these bad actors are honest about the evil they pursue, they’re just not bothering to hide their dishonesty.

More than that, however, the current administration has almost completed the job of making this nation’s system of justice an utter joke through reducing it to that of a third-world nation, a banana republic.

Exhibit number two: Jann Wenner

Every so often, someone of note publicly reveals his own prejudices, bigotry, and racist attitudes (less than savory characteristics that are common to each and every one of us) – comes so close to ignoring the faux outrage from the woke hypocrites on the left (and in so doing, telling them where to stick their virtue) – it offers the most faint glimmer of hope.

Then, he blows it by capitulating to the woke mob. Like this:

On Saturday night, Wenner released a statement apologizing for his comments.
‘In my interview with The New York Times I made comments that diminished the contributions, genius, and impact of Black and women artists and I apologize wholeheartedly for those remarks,’ he said.

After its founding, Rolling Stone magazine was an excellent publication that gave its readers some insight into many of the various aspects of the music industry. When I fancied myself a serious musician, I was a subscriber.

Granted, once it began to cover news outside of its core competency, it went downhill fast, despite having the late P.J. O’Rourke on staff as a columnist. Now, if it even exists in print version, it’s barely suitable for lining the bottom of a bird cage.

Thank you, dear reader, for your indulgence.

Until next time…

Cultural Orphan

Discussion about this post